-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/23/2013 10:23 PM, Don deJuan wrote:
From a non TU's perspective D.R. was the only one who could
publicly state why greysky should not be a TU, and the rest of the
sheeple just followed the old and grumpy man, at least that is
public
Don deJuan wrote:
There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
result.
Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
made up their minds.
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
the objections were
On 24 March 2013 04:42, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
If a TU has an objection that he cannot support publicly then something is
very
wrong. The application process should not be some mysterious black box of
negative, baseless opinions. If a TU would rather keep an objection to himself
than
I unsubscribed from the ML so I'm not 100 % sure that this message
will nest itself under Xyne's reply[1]. I would appear to be a
polarizing force based on the votes; I wouldn't be comfortable joining
the TU group given the more or less 50/50 split reflected in the data.
To my supporters, I'd
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
Don deJuan wrote:
There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
result.
Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
made up their minds.
Objections were raised and then
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with
their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the
issues and reconsider them in the
On 25 March 2013 03:30, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
that
the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
with
their reasons. That is the point of the discussion
On 24/03/13 12:30 PM, Xyne wrote:
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
that
the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
with
their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote:
The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based
on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection
process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
you give me some creed.
I find your argument to have no basis in fact and to be
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Eric Waller ewwal...@gmail.com wrote:
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
you
Xyne wrote:
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
Xyne wrote:
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:01 PM, member graysky gray...@archlinux.uswrote:
Thanks for supporting the application, Xyne, and to those who
participated in the subsequent discussion. I was really happy to have
read the kind words from some of the the non-TUs who posted in support
of me as
Op zaterdag 23 maart 2013 17:51:42 schreef Xyne:
Xyne wrote:
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I
On 23 March 2013 19:51, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been
rejected.
I certainly didn't see this coming: I can't believe so many TUs voted
NO
On 23 March 2013 17:51, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
@TUs
Voting no rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject
the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period.
If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them
Am 23.03.2013 18:51, schrieb Xyne:
Xyne wrote:
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I am sorry to
Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
On 23 March 2013 17:51, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
@TUs
Voting no rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject
the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion
period.
If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
Xyne wrote:
@TUs
The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few
participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even
admitted that he may be old and grumpy) and they were
On 03/23/2013 09:59 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote:
Xyne wrote:
@TUs
The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few
participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even
admitted
21 matches
Mail list logo
